this is a terrible argument, the fact that all these circumstances happened is the reason we are able to talk about it. There is nobody to argue in In all the worlds were the circumstances are different. Do you have any idea how many worlds there are, i think the chance there a couple would produce life are actually quite good. What scientific research. I get the idea you have no idea what a scientific research is. Just because something is complex doesn’t mean that there has to be a design. I really hate the intelligent design. The whole argument is: something is complex, so there must be a god. That is not science. So if we cannot explain something that must mean there is a god. I love this argument. It is what people always used hundreds of years ago. There is thunder, how can that happen, we do not understand, it must be the work of the gods. The fact that we are not smart enough to understand something doesn’t mean that the only explanation must be some higher power.
some people, like myself, would rather be happy than right, any day. especially if it's something neither side of a debate can prove/disprove.
See, that's another thing that bothers me. The idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive. So just because we now know the science behind thunder, the idea of it coming from God is no longer relevant? That's the same exact thing as me saying "Well, ya know what, I know how to build a car from scratch, I know the science behind it. This must mean that Henry Ford doesn't exist." Just because we now understand so much more isn't reason enough to say the 'God' argument is a cop-out. If you were to ask me, it reinforces an idea of a higher power.
I wouldn't necessarily say that.. I think being an agnostic puts me in a very interesting scene in which I can analyze both ends of the spectrum with respect to religion and atheism: The faults, the upsides, and even why they tend to think the way that they do. It's put me in the middle of some very rewarding conversations.
Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) acknowledges that any amount of debate can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest. Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God does or does not exist, their behavior would not change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Atheism requires exactly as much faith as Christianity or Islam do. Nobody knows sh^t, it all just comes down to what you decide to believe. Most atheists utterly reject this obvious truth, which is why I have more respect for agnostics. At least they're honest, and don't pretend to know something that they don't. I know the Great Commission says that I am supposed to try and convert non-believers, but frankly, I am a "to each his own" sort of guy, and it's not worth the effort to me. I believe you're free to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I do find it interesting that atheists are - almost invariably, with a few exceptions - prone to petulant and disdainful mockery of those who believe in a "flying spaghetti monster" or whatever. It seems like a defense mechanism to me.
You are right, but you have missed my point. I believe science and faith (a more appropriate term than religion) have nothing to do with each other. science is about trying to understand the world. Faith is about if you believe the is a higher power who created the world and the people. It does not exclude each other, because they have nothing to do with each other. I believe faith is a result from feeling a connection with a higher power. Some friends of mine have that. I do not believe there is a god. I'm happy for the people who do believe in a god and get peace of mind from it. I do not believe in a god, and I’m happy with that. I do have a big problem with intelligent design. When people want to bring faith in a science class they are missing the point. Religion should be taught in a specific class but keep it out of the biology classes. Intelligent design has 1 argument. Things are so complex, there must be a god. That is a flawed logic. If we cannot understand something doesn't mean that there is some higher power involved. Of course it also doesn't exclude that higher power. Trying to prove there is a higher power because things are complex is stupid. The thing I have a problem with is when people say: "We do not understand something so a god must have created it". For the people who use this argument science must be a threat, since science ties to explain the world. But even if we do understand everything about how the world works that has no influence on whether there is a god or not. It should have no impact on faith.
I do not feel like I’m part of some group people call atheists. I do not believe in a god, but we do not know if there is a god or not. I respect what other people want to believe, except for a few moments: 1: When they try to convert me (leave me alone, i also do not come to your home and try to show you the error of your ways. 2: When they want to prove there is a god (although i also mock people who want to prove there isn't a god) 3: When their religion i a threat to my family. For example I live in a city surrounded by very Christian town, in those town there are many people who do not vaccinate their children against the Measles. As a result we have a Measles epidemic, and now my child (who is to young for the vaccination) can get the Measles. They are keeping a dangerous illness alive because they refuse to protect their children> I'm not saying they should be forced to vaccinate, but I can't respect this. 4: When they try to force others to life by there religious standards (anti gay laws)
Eh, that door swings both ways. Atheists are certainly guilty of it as well (forcing people who believe that homosexuality is a sin into accepting things like speech codes, forcing children of such religious people to have to share bathrooms with members of the opposite sex, etc). I'd like for the atheists back off just as I think some of the more fervent members of my side of the aisle should back off. It should always be a personal choice.
Trillions of planets with trillions of organic chemical reactions occurring every second over billions of years; one becomes self replicating and here we are. Given the scale and time, with the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry why would it even be improbable? And in a Universe (or Multi-verse) of unlimited possibilities it would be absolutely inevitable, eventually. The human mind is a problem solving machine that will construct solutions in the absence of certainty. Religion solves a lot of problems, in early science (out of which we are beginning to evolve) and in the arena of human relations (morality). But anyone with an interest in science, or science as a way defining truth, has to accept uncertainty as fact. We can't know of things outside of our ability to perceive them. You can't make definitive statements without information.
Eh, I don't think calling yourself one thing or another has to close doors. I'm arguing the Christian position here so much, probably half the regulars did a double-take when I said I was an atheist.
I agree to a point. I do not mind people thinking homosexuality is a sin. I do object to religieus people trying to keep homosexuals from having basic rights. Like being able to mary the person they love. Nobody is forcing you do mary a guy (i'm assuming you are a guy). But lets not make this another thread about gay rights, we will have enough of these already. Like you said it is a personal choice. Maybe i'm missing something but what do you mean by speech codes? in what way are atheist forcing people to share a bathroom (is this about the transgender thread, i din't really read the thread). And why do you think that is a atheist thing. since when is it a religious thing to have a woman and mens bathroom. I do not see that many examples of non religious people forcing their way on religious people. Maybe that is because most governments are effected by religion (even if they say they seperate church and state). Can you give me more examples of atheist forcing religieus people to change their ways. I'm interested, and if indeed that is the case i'm also against it.
LOL at this. Forcing your views about homosexuality or bathroom sharing is NOT an atheist position. Personal choice.. sure. As long as it stays personal and you keep it within the compounds of your own home. The problem starts when you start legislating laws based on your personal choice.
I know a lot of atheists - and I have yet to find one that claims to know what the truth is. Atheists don't know what is up - if they claim that there is nothing, that doesn't make the an atheist as they are in fact believing that there is nothing - which makes them religious in a way. What the few who mock actually mock is that people believe they know the truth and how ridiculous it is to believe in religious fables. I am an atheist because I question what I have been exposed to. And through that questioning it seems highly Dubious and religion is correct. What I find humour in devout religious people is the fact that they don't question their beliefs. To me, that shows they are secure enough to hold up their beliefs to self-scrutiny. But I don't call that out - ever. Because that would be cruel and dangerous. I don't want to strip away someone's security and coping mechanism for dealing with things like mortality. But I do find it funny. And is that a crime if it causes no one any harm?
I am an atheist and my beliefs require exactly zero faith. Care to explain what you mean here? Saying that my atheism takes as much faith as someone who believes the son of god was born without sperm is just flat out ridiculous. I believe what I believe because of the evidence that I have examined. If new evidence arises that conflicts with old-style thinking, I will change my thinking. A perfect example I can give involves the big bang. Up until the last five or so years, many scientists believed that the universe would eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse back onto itself until you have a 'big crunch' that creates another big bang. It was a pretty clean and logical hypothesis (at least to me) at the time. Did I think it was absolute? Absolutely not. We now know that the universe is expanding and increasing its speed of expansion. The 'big crunch' is no longer a valid hypothesis. None of this required faith.
So that automatically validates Christianity? LOL. If all we need to do is write a book full of fairy tales and claim it to be fact (the Bible) then sign me up. The origin of life is derived from a giant spaghetti monster that masturbated too vigorously and ejaculated the first human couple. Adam and Eve. ^^ That story is about as credible as the bible. Its fun watching theists get flustered and bewildered at the thought that some of us either do not believe in a higher power, or just flat out don't give a **** if there was or wasn't. And I can't ease up on being a hardline jackass towards religion because if I do then people misinterpret that as me being someone they can convert to their godawful indoctrinated beliefs.
